“Hockey stick” climate scientist’s e-mail protected from disclosure

Global warming skeptics lose bid for scientist's e-mail.

A climate scientist widely known for the "hockey stick" graph of recent temperatures has won the right to keep his e-mail private amid unsubstantiated allegations he might have rigged research data.

Virginia's top court ruled Thursday that Michael Mann's electronic communications, generated while he was a professor at the University of Virginia, are a shielded, "proprietary" [PDF] work product.

The Energy Environmental Institute, formerly the American Tradition Institute, and a local lawmaker sought the e-mail under the state's Freedom of Information Act. The institute objects to claims that global warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

Mann's troubles began in 2009, when hackers stole e-mail messages from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain.

One e-mail from the center's director noted a "trick" in one of Mann's articles that appeared in the journal Nature. Mann, now at Penn State, has maintained that the e-mail was taken out of context.

Mann has become famous for his attempts to reconstruct the climate of the past 1,000 years. The original "hockey stick" graph suggested that the past few decades have been the warmest period in more than 1,000 years. Subsequent research by Mann and others has replicated his general conclusions.

Media groups urged the Virginia Supreme Court to demand disclosure. The Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press said that e-mail "among professors is not entitled to a blanket treatment as proprietary" and "must be subject to public scrutiny."

David Kravets
The senior editor for Ars Technica. Founder of TYDN fake news site. Technologist. Political scientist. Humorist. Dad of two boys. Been doing journalism for so long I remember manual typewriters with real paper. Emaildavid.kravets@arstechnica.com//Twitter@dmkravets

The Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press said that e-mail "among professors is not entitled to a blanket treatment as proprietary" and "must be subject to public scrutiny."

This statement disturbs me. The mere job of being a professor should make your emails open to public scrutiny? What other professions would this Committee like to exempt from being secure in one's "persons, houses, papers, and effects"?

Plus Dr. Mann teaches courses like METEO 469 at Penn State. His PhD was in physics, so If you're decent with that subject, you can start with his Zero Dimensional Energy Balance Model and learn for yourself how a simple climate model is put together. Lecture materials are right there on the web.

Yeah it is getting to the point that there should just be a damned snoops entry on this thing (thinking it is debunked, not that it actually is).

Also...seriously? So all professors email should be public? All public officials email should be public? Anyone working on behalf of the tax payer?

I think reports and conclusions and stuff generally should be. Raw data generally should be. I don't think communications generally should be unless you can show specific and great public interest and benefit in having those communications made public and then only communications related to that specific point of great public interest.

One e-mail from the center's director noted a "trick" in one of Mann's articles that appeared in the journal Nature. Mann, now at Penn State, has maintained that the e-mail was taken out of context.

On a science and technology oriented site like ars, the author should be able to comment on whether the alleged "trick" is nefarious or not. Linking to WaPo does not cut it. There is a reason I am reading ars and not WaPo.

I love that the "American Tradition Institute" can rename itself as "Energy Environmental Institute" while objecting to linking greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. If there was ever an Orwellian use of language...

One e-mail from the center's director noted a "trick" in one of Mann's articles that appeared in the journal Nature. Mann, now at Penn State, has maintained that the e-mail was taken out of context.

On a science and technology oriented site like ars, the author should be able to comment on whether the alleged "trick" is nefarious or not. Linking to WaPo does not cut it. There is a reason I am reading ars and not WaPo.

I love that the "American Tradition Institute" can rename itself as "Energy Environmental Institute" while objecting to linking greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. If there was ever an Orwellian use of language...

It's a trick in the same way, when I implement a bit of code, reducing the number of SQL transactions, thus speeding up my server, it is a trick.

One e-mail from the center's director noted a "trick" in one of Mann's articles that appeared in the journal Nature. Mann, now at Penn State, has maintained that the e-mail was taken out of context.

On a science and technology oriented site like ars, the author should be able to comment on whether the alleged "trick" is nefarious or not. Linking to WaPo does not cut it. There is a reason I am reading ars and not WaPo.

I love that the "American Tradition Institute" can rename itself as "Energy Environmental Institute" while objecting to linking greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. If there was ever an Orwellian use of language...

Yeah, I live in the DC area and the WaPo is part of my daily news update, mostly for politics/local things.

It's not what it used to be in terms of reporting quality, but their scientific/tech reporting is atrocious the vast majority of the time. It makes NPR's coverage of tech look stellar in comparison...

One e-mail from the center's director noted a "trick" in one of Mann's articles that appeared in the journal Nature. Mann, now at Penn State, has maintained that the e-mail was taken out of context.

On a science and technology oriented site like ars, the author should be able to comment on whether the alleged "trick" is nefarious or not. Linking to WaPo does not cut it. There is a reason I am reading ars and not WaPo.

I love that the "American Tradition Institute" can rename itself as "Energy Environmental Institute" while objecting to linking greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. If there was ever an Orwellian use of language...

It would be falsely balanced if the topic was whether the science was right or not. The topic here is the court challenge, which is all about claims and counterclaims.

I'm not a lawyer, but in a state funded school working on US gov't grants, I'd say emails are not "work product". (I'm sort of curious if there are grant funding rules making his email property of the US gov.)

I am surprised by this decision, because I thought it had been decided a long time ago that employees have no privacy rights to work emails.

I'd be interested in a finer grade discussion of this Ars. When do people have expectations of privacy over work emails and when do they not?

Al Gore Calls Global Warming Skeptics “Immoral, Unethical And Despicable”…Therefore, the debate is over.There's no need for honest debate on this. Smarter people than you have decreed that it is so.

And the earth is flat.And the sun revolves around the earth.

Why doesn't it bother anyone that "diversity" has been redefined to mean "the suppression of all dissent"?

There is CONSTANTLY honest debate on this. That honest debate is done by climate scientists. What global warming "skeptics" engage in could neither be called "honest" nor "debate."

Then Mann should release the data. What's the big secret?

Because, global warming is real, the scientist must release his personal email? I don't understand your logic. Perhaps it is something like, 2+2=4, so we need to put a camera in some math professor's bathroom.

I'm not a lawyer, but in a state funded school working on US gov't grants, I'd say emails are not "work product". (I'm sort of curious if there are grant funding rules making his email property of the US gov.)

I am surprised by this decision, because I thought it had been decided a long time ago that employees have no privacy rights to work emails.

I'd be interested in a finer grade discussion of this Ars. When do people have expectations of privacy over work emails and when do they not?

I believe that relates to privacy from the employer, not from the public.

I work for the state in the Public School system, my Salary is public information that gets published in the local newspaper from time to time, my emails are public property and any email I send on my work email account can be seen by any member of the community if they request it.. so I don't see why he would be an exception. Now if it were my personal email account that is another story.

Yeah it is getting to the point that there should just be a damned snoops entry on this thing (thinking it is debunked, not that it actually is).

Also...seriously? So all professors email should be public? All public officials email should be public? Anyone working on behalf of the tax payer?

I think reports and conclusions and stuff generally should be. Raw data generally should be. I don't think communications generally should be unless you can show specific and great public interest and benefit in having those communications made public and then only communications related to that specific point of great public interest.

Thanks for that link. The fact that people (myself included) still think that the hockey stick graph is wrong or debunked shows how successful the misinformation campaign of the climate change deniers has been.

We should probably publish all email to and from doctors in publicly funded hospitals. If the government is paying for part of the building, those medical records should be given to the public. Who cares about the Professor's private conversations or about student records or notes he sent to his friends or his wife?

One e-mail from the center's director noted a "trick" in one of Mann's articles that appeared in the journal Nature. Mann, now at Penn State, has maintained that the e-mail was taken out of context.

On a science and technology oriented site like ars, the author should be able to comment on whether the alleged "trick" is nefarious or not. Linking to WaPo does not cut it. There is a reason I am reading ars and not WaPo.

I love that the "American Tradition Institute" can rename itself as "Energy Environmental Institute" while objecting to linking greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. If there was ever an Orwellian use of language...

It's a trick in the same way, when I implement a bit of code, reducing the number of SQL transactions, thus speeding up my server, it is a trick.

The full quote, IIRC, was "...trick to hide the decline...". It may or may not have been taken out of context. But, personally, I find the word "hide" a lot more disturbing than "trick".

Of course, this is climate science we are talking about so there is no ability to talk reasonably about these things. Either the climate scientists are persecuted saints or they are evil money-grubbers. Has to be one or the other.

If the decline was an artifact of instrumentation, as has been irrefutably demonstrated, the decline must be hidden. It's called good science. (If the new thermometer always reads five degrees below the old one, you must either add five degrees to the new numbers or subtract five from the old ones. Otherwise, historic data is meaningless.)

One e-mail from the center's director noted a "trick" in one of Mann's articles that appeared in the journal Nature. Mann, now at Penn State, has maintained that the e-mail was taken out of context.

On a science and technology oriented site like ars, the author should be able to comment on whether the alleged "trick" is nefarious or not. Linking to WaPo does not cut it. There is a reason I am reading ars and not WaPo.

I love that the "American Tradition Institute" can rename itself as "Energy Environmental Institute" while objecting to linking greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. If there was ever an Orwellian use of language...

It's a trick in the same way, when I implement a bit of code, reducing the number of SQL transactions, thus speeding up my server, it is a trick.

The full quote, IIRC, was "...trick to hide the decline...". It may or may not have been taken out of context. But, personally, I find the word "hide" a lot more disturbing than "trick".

That is still not a "full quote." It's not even a full sentence, and it lacks context.